If we want more income equality.....

[Prison Bitch]

If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?
BY JIM LINDGREN
January 28 at 5:41 am
More



Other things being equal, income equality is better than inequality. But other things are NOT equal. The easiest way to make incomes more equal in the short run is to have a recession.

Much has been made of growing income inequality since 1979, but very little attention has been paid to which of the four presidental administrations preceding Barack Obama increased income equality and which ones reduced it. In short, the two presidents whose terms involved improving income equality were the two George Bushes and the two whose terms were associated with worsening after-tax income equality were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. It is probably not an accident that the two presidents in whose administrations the GDP grew the most were the two presidents whose time in office coincided with worsening income equality.

The president under whom the poorest quintile enjoyed the largest increase in after-tax household income was George W. Bush. And the two administrations under whom the richest quintile and richest 1 percent fared the worst were the two Presidents Bush. Among Barack Obama’s four immediate predecessors, the two biggest income equalizers were George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Just to be clear, I am not pining for the good old days of the economy of George W. Bush.


But George W. Bush was the most successful of our recent past presidents in achieving very substantial increases in incomes for the poorest quintile (+18.4%), while keeping gains for the richest quintile and richest 1 percent at modest levels. For example, under Bush the Younger, the incomes of the richest 1 percent rose only 6.5 percent in eight years, compared to a staggering 84 percent under Clinton and 91 percent under Reagan.
If you would rather have Bill Clinton’s economy than George W. Bush’s economy – and I definitely would – then as a practical matter you probably don’t care overmuch about income equality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...george-w-bush/

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Democrats are using "income inequality" as a central talking point all over the place. Did someone at the DNC cut you out of the loop or something? Better check your junk folder.

How does discussing the trend of greater income inequality of the previous decades = goal of income equality?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

How does discussing the trend of greater income inequality of the previous decades = goal of income equality?

If Ds came up with the term "income inequality" it was pretty dumb. It is too easily turned to "income equality" which the Rs will then use to rant about communism.

[Prison Bitch]

So, how has Obama defined it? Jay Cosmo said he got 5 different definitions here, but not one from Obama yet?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

So, how has Obama defined it? Jay Cosmo said he got 5 different definitions here, but not one from Obama yet?

I didn't say I got 5 different definitions here. I didn't get any. Mostly, I just got shit for even asking. Eventually, maybe there was one.

I haven't heard Obama say there was a goal of "income equality."

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I didn't say I got 5 different definitions here. I didn't get any. Eventually, maybe there was one.

I haven't heard Obama say there was a goal of "income equality."

So, if the President hasn't articulated a goal then what is the point of him and the DNC base of even speaking it? Campaign wedge issue maybe?

[HonestChieffan]

Income inequality is the PC term for class envy.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Loneiguana

How does discussing the trend of greater income inequality of the previous decades = goal of income equality?

Have you been lobotomized? That doesn't have anything to do with my post.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I didn't say I got 5 different definitions here. I didn't get any. Mostly, I just got shit for even asking. Eventually, maybe there was one.

I haven't heard Obama say there was a goal of "income equality."

You got an answer. You just didn't like the answer. I don't know how you could have missed the extensive talk in democrat circles (including here on CP) about income inequality.

"More income equality" from the thread title refers to the left's screeching about fixing the alleged "income inequality" crisis. No one, on the left or the right has called for perfect income equality. More equality is the same as less inequality. It's a directional/relative thing not an absolute measure.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You got an answer. You just don't like the answer. I didn't know how you could have missed the extensive talk in democrat circles (including here on CP) about income inequality.

Or is it income equality? The thread title and article says income equality.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Or is it income equality? The thread title and article says income equality.

I edited that post to explain it more fully for those who need extensive handholding.

[GloryDayz]

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Or is it income equality? The thread title and article says income equality.

The thread title says more equality. The Democrat talking point for the last few months has been income inequality. If more equality isn't the goal then what is the goal?
You know what the word more means, right?

[Prison Bitch]

Cosmo's inability to formulate any definition of the problem mirrors Obama's inability to do the same. And ensures nothing will ever change on the topic. Which the Democrat voters out there should pick up on, but you know they won't.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by KC native

No, teej, not allowing you to blame your boogeyman, the Federal Reserve, for how income is distributed is not ignoring the Fed's role.

Explain how the Fed isn't at fault for the tilted wealth distribution under Raygun but it is since 2000.

Waving your hands in the air and saying "IT'S BECAUSE OF FIAT MONEY AND THE FED PRINTING MONEY." doesn't prove shit. It just shows how shallow your understanding of everything economics related.

You have your boogeyman and you will continue to blame him because that's what you do. You have zero interest in being connected to the real world and actually learning about these things. You would rather let LewRockwell.com and Ron Paul spoon feed you their talking points.

See this is why I asked these questions. I knew that you wouldn't be able to answer them and be stuck at the usual ad hominem. Your intellect is a mirage. The points that I made are valid points that you refuse to answer because you know that you can't. That's fine with me - I'm not here to argue with you. You argue with me, and I'm willing to engage enough to show that the emperor has no clothes. I just wish every organization were as flawless as you make the fed out to be that we can't ask any questions about them. They endlessly pump money into the economy, "income inequality" grows, and I'm the the one who is clueless here for asking about the relationship between the two...

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Have you been lobotomized? That doesn't have anything to do with my post.

I don't know if you act stupid or are actually this stupid... but you responded to this:

"It seems like (and I'm open to correction on this) the right is trying to stick this "income equality" label on the left so they can use it for their "Ds are evil socialists" narrative. I've asked several times--who is using this "income equality" term? Who is saying it is a goal? Is anyone saying that everyone's income should be equal?"

with this:

"Democrats are using "income inequality" as a central talking point all over the place. Did someone at the DNC cut you out of the loop or something? Better check your junk folder.

He asked who is saying income equality is the goal? Your response was that is should be obvious because they talk about income inequality.

So, then my question was, how does one get get to a goal of income equality from discussing income inequality, since that is what you implied in your post.

Stop being stupid.